Printable View
I don't know... What are other Muslims so pissed about?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
I would say indiscriminate killing counts as terrorism whether or not it was for religious or political purposes. They certainly caused a lot of terror in the general population...Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Yeah, but that's back to where I started from. If indiscriminate killing counts as terrorism, then there have actually been several attacks since 9/11 in the US. Still, the definition seems too broad.
It seems too broad because there's no mention of the main goal being to inspire terror amongst the population. In principle terrorism can be very effective without killing anybody, although usually it does. See the IRA attacks on London back in the 80s/90s. Warning was usually given in advance to allow the police to clear the area, but the bombings remained acts of terrorism. I say usually because in some instances (such as the bombing of the Tory party conference) people did get killed quite deliberately.
Mr. Anthrax would be another example. Nobody knows who it was, or what their motivation was, but the cost and effect was disproportionately larger than the damage done.
I agree. I would consider your wacky morning DJ a terrorist if he/she attempts to instill fear by telling listeners of rat feces in McDonald's hamburgers.Quote:
Originally Posted by zaza
Ummmm, what's wrong with that? Don't you think there ought to be at least SOMETHING of nutritional value included in one of those burgers?
Many words have no clear lines in it's definition, but a grey area.Quote:
Originally Posted by Schatzy
Lets put things into perspective. We are talking about phone calls made by non US citizens that originated and terminated in a country other than the USA. The problem was that sometimes these calls would be route through a US switch and thus these phone calls became under the purview of US jurisprudence. The Bush Administration wasn't listening in on domestic phone conversations (calls that either originated, terminiated or both in the USA) without a Title 3 Warrant.Quote:
Originally Posted by capsulecorpjx
I feel scared that people like you would approve of measures that would weaken our intelligence gathering. About 10 blocks south of where I am right now is a rather large hole where the World Trade Center used to be, I am reminded each day I pass the site on daily commute the dangers of not being diligent regarding our national security.Quote:
Originally Posted by capsulecorpjx
I think what Mark is trying to say is:
"Boy, you gotta stop readin' them long-haired books."
Quote:
Originally Posted by homer13j
Yeah, what he said.
And in the end you find that the best solution is the one in the middle.
There is a need for tapping conversations, however, there is also a danger in giving that authority. It is crucial for intelligence gathering, yet its a very broad power that can be used contrary to its intentional purpose.
A true conservative never likes to give government more power. A true progressive never likes to decrease government power. According to the last 20 years - the voters of the US have pit both sides against one another, and with the exception of 2002-2006, neither side has had too much power.
I agree with you but my point was that the telephone calls in question didn't originate nor terminate in the US they were only routed through a telephone switch located in the US. These calls were made by non US citizens, so if this is the issue I don't see a problem with the NSA listening in on these conversations especially if the parties are discussing terrorist or criminal activities.Quote:
Originally Posted by nemaroller
The funny thing is nobody has thought, hey maybe we should offer osama bin laden the right to speek. Think about it, yes he blew up the WTC, but the US blew up alot of japan. Come to think of it they blew up a lot of places.
Im not trying to make a laugh out of the issue, but as always the majority vote on this is always, damn, we need a bigger wall and more guns. The problem with the world today is some issues are blown hugely out of proportion.
The only difference between war and terrorisim, seems to be the former can claim it is to protect their "national security". G Bush feels he is protecting his country and ridding the world of a large evil. Osama bin laden feels he is ridding the world of a large evil. See how they are both the same except for one can say it is for his country!
As for Jihad, Osama is a smart man, he realised he can leverage his power through the use of religion, The fact is religion has nothing to do with this. All through out history religion has been a big shield to hide behind and nothng more. As for islamic zelots, they are no different than the roman catholic church zelots.
And studies show the catholic church has murdered more people in the name of religion than every other religion combined. Im really sorry for those peole that lost there lives on 9/11 but were is the national outcry for the general populus left to die in Iraq because of a conflict they have nothing to do with.
Anyway thats my two cents, take it how you like....
I remember just last week he released a video that was played on every major network, so I think we have given him the right to speak.Quote:
Originally Posted by CodedFire
We "blew up a lot of Japan" after we were attacked and after we declared war upon Japan.Quote:
Originally Posted by CodedFire
When you have people who are willing to send their children into a public place with a bomb strapped to themselves so that they can kill as many people they can, what do you expect us to do sit back and welcome them with open arms?Quote:
Originally Posted by CodedFire
Didn't Hilter et al think the same thing in 1939?Quote:
Originally Posted by CodedFire
Quote:
Originally Posted by CodedFire
I remember just last week he released a video that was played on every major network, so I think we have given him the right to speak.
Thats, not the same, meant a proper meeting, he only gets media attention because it sells stories.
We "blew up a lot of Japan" after we were attacked and after we declared war upon Japan.
Did Osama not declare war on the US before 9/11?
When you have people who are willing to send their children into a public place with a bomb strapped to themselves so that they can kill as many people they can, what do you expect us to do sit back and welcome them with open arms?
Sounds alot like veitnam, only different weapons.
Didn't Hilter et al think the same thing in 1939?
I did not say ether guy was right therefore you proved my point.
Im not trying to start a fight mark merely show you a neutral perspective on the situation.
I am not mad at you by any means, I respect you opinions. We are debating different points of view.
Cool, its just i know your from NYC and at the end of the day, it would be more of an issue for you than me since it is not something that has caused an impact on my life, me living in a neutral country half way around the world and all.
Godwin's Law...Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Gambo
Which is?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CodedFire
Godwin's Law
An object fully or partially submerged in a fluid, will receive an upwards force equal to the weight of the fluid displaced.
I was merely replying to your post without thinking. I have in fact google open at all times. And i did see your last post as well pengate. Im glad you decided to edit......
With respect to the debate at hand, since we seem to gone off on a not unpredictable tangent, I have two questions that might be able to provide some vaguely contentious points of discussion. They're genuine questions that I don't have a preconceived opinion on.
1. If we suppose that terrorists (in this case, entities to whom the term is commonly applied, rather than as defined by any formal definition) do not comprise any unified entity, but rather a collection of independent entities: who in fact is the 'war on terror' being fought against, and is it accurate and proper to label it a war?
2. How does modern warfare (let's say anything post-WWII), as fought by civilised nations (let's say the U.S. and anyone widely accepted to be a developed nation) differ from state-sponsored terrorism; is it misleading to draw comparisons between terrorism and acts of war; and where should the line be drawn?
@Pengate, i appologise for my previous post, your right lets get back to topic
1. If we suppose that terrorists (in this case, entities to whom the term is commonly applied, rather than as defined by any formal definition) do not comprise any unified entity, but rather a collection of independent entities: who in fact is the 'war on terror' being fought against, and is it accurate and proper to label it a war?
(I us the term US to mean the bush administration)
My feeling on this is is that it is not proper to label it as a war. For instance lets take the fall of saddam, what right had the bush admin to go to Iraq, this would be no different than US troops landing on Irish soil and decimating northern Ireland because of the troubles. My feeling is basicly the US are mixing up the term super power with super police. Also the US are echos animal farm, all countries are equal, but some are more equal (Those who support the US) than others.
2. How does modern warfare (let's say anything post-WWII), as fought by civilised nations (let's say the U.S. and anyone widely accepted to be a developed nation) differ from state-sponsored terrorism; is it misleading to draw comparisons between terrorism and acts of war; and where should the line be drawn?
I think the basic answer here is there is no line. It is all down to how the situation is viewed, some think the acts of the bush admin are acts of terrorism, while some don't. I think war and terrorism are one and the same but represent different points of view on the same situation.
The US toppled Saddam for various reasons - but the support for doing so was the repeated UN violations. The run up to the invasion was a decade of UN resolutions being ignored. However, when push came to shove - the UN did not want to militarily engage Iraq (the food-for-oil scandal shed some light on that however). Further, as much as people think the Bush Administration cooked the books by stating the concern for weapons of mass destruction - the truth is no one really knew if Iraq had those weapons. But if they did, they could certainly have used them against Kuwait, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.
Considering the unknown weapons, at the end of the day, the main reason for the invasion was to prevent the possibility of Saddam using those weapons to terrorize oil supplies in the region. Oil is so vital to Western civilization that the US does proactively take steps to secure it.
Now, as a citizen of Ireland, you can lam blast US foreign policy by 'claiming' neutrality - but at the end of the day, even the Irish government knows it benefits greatly from US intervention to secure oil supplies in the region (Ireland ranked 3rd in oil consumption per capita among 25 EU countries.)
Ireland benefits from US military intervention, just as much as the rest of the Western world. I'm not stating you should be thankful - it is after all a side effect, but you should be aware the current gains in your economy have made Ireland very dependent on oil, especially in the last 10-15 years. If oil supplies were held hostage, Ireland would have to resort to non-Opec countries for all of their oil, which would increase costs significantly, possibly leading to the loss of your job.
Actually more dependant that you think, at the end of the day Ireland is an island of an island of the main land. And we are at the end of a very long oil pipe line!
But something does trouble me about your post, was it not the US who put saddam in power in the first place, therefore causing this problem in the first place?
Also does you US not possess not posses WMD why are they allowed to have them and not the rest of the world? As for the UN, they are merely a puppet for the use of the US in europe.
First, don't forget it was the UK that created the modern country of Iraq.
Second, supporting one military power to counteract another (Iran's about face in the 70's) is a viable strategy. However, regardless if we supported Saddam in the past, does that somehow dictate that support should continue, and steps to remove him were to be kept off the table?
Third, I guarantee you the UN is not a US puppet. Did the UN support our invasion into Iraq? No.
As far as WMD's, and whether or not its 'fair' for a democratic republic to retain them versus a dictator who continuously used them to kill civilians, in my opinion - I would say its fair 100% for us to retain them.
If you sleep at night worrying the US will attack Ireland, you have been fed too many conspiracy and liberal theories.
Yes but my arguement is by what right does the US have to overthrow another country, if they really were true to this war on terror propaganda why is Kim Jong II still in power?
Yes the UN is a US puppet, what did they do to stop the invasion, Nada, and lets not forget who has the biggest sway on the UN security council along with our friends from the UK.
How can you say it is fair for any goverment regardless of their ideology to have WMD, this proves my point of all countries are equal some more equal than others, does your "democratic" goverment not also use its weapons to kill civillians from other countries to further its own agenda? Democratic Politians are just as currupt as dictators, this has been proven time and time again, not only in the US.
As for the US bombing Ireland, i highly doubt it, hell even hitler didn't want Ireland! And by the way im not lam basting the US, im merley giving my point. My goverment is also in the lap of the bush admin. After all, All of your planes refulled at shannon airport. So they get no awards ether.
There is no written agreements amongst countries determining right of attack. Even if there were, an agreement is only enforceable by the ones involved. The act of aggression is of course not a favorable one - and the US has staked its reputation by its removal of Saddam.
As far as the UN, it is simply a body to attempt diplomatic resolution before engaging militarily. Yes, the UN did not stop the US (and realistically, why would they attack the US to save Saddam), but neither did they stop the Balkans war in the past decade. But the UN only has the powers of its member's commitment. The fact the US was not held accountable proves many in the diplomatic body were not fully against the aggression.
North Korea finally got on board and adopted the UN policy. But no doubt Japan, Taiwan, and Australian leaders were not comfortable about his possession of nuclear weapons.
You are correct - that there is no absolute 'just' definition of fair. But, consider that when Saddam was militarily powerful, the rest of the region's powers (including Iran), were very concerned. The fact that Iraq was not a democracy but led by a militant underclass dictator meant the royalty in neighboring Arab states felt threatened. Remember, besides the US, Saddam had no friends.Quote:
"say it is fair for any goverment regardless of their ideology to have WMD, this proves my point of all countries are equal some more equal than others, does your "democratic" goverment not also use its weapons to kill civillians from other countries to further its own agenda? Democratic Politians are just as currupt as dictators, this has been proven time and time again, not only in the US.
Let me illuminate the current actions of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. We haven't targeted Chavez - even while he is illegally confiscating private ownership of US capital and property in his country and declaring it State property. He is a socialist 'dictator' who is very publicly anti-US. Yet, he doesn't kill his civilians with weapons of mass destruction either.
I See your point, i suppose this sort of debeat is always a mircky one!
The US has nukes which can be classified as WMDs, but so does most of the western world. The US does not, however, possess weapons like cyanide gas, sarin, anthrax, mustard gas, etc. and all those other nasty chemicals that Saddam used to kill all those Kurds in the early '90s.Quote:
Originally Posted by CodedFire
Oh, wait. I forgot that Saddam had no WMDs. It was all lies. All those poor Kurds must have just died from natural causes. Nevermind.
Well, the Kurds were gassed when we knew he had chemical weapons. The question was did he still have the weapons after the first US invasion and the order from the UN to destroy them. Of course, most people believe he never did destroy them - which is why the UN inspectors were denied access to certain areas.
And while the US military may not possess chemical weapons - we certainly possess the ability to produce them readily.
Saddam put himself in power by purging his political opponents in 1979 (if I recall the year correctly). He didn't have any major outside Western support in doing this or in achieving the places in government he had held before that. About all our CIA and their Western European counterparts were concerned about was that he wasn't a Communist or a radical Islamist. Therefore, he was OK in their book even if he was a bloodthirsty tyrant to his own people.Quote:
Originally Posted by CodedFire
After the Iran Hostage Crisis he was seen as a good buffer to have against the extremists who had taken control of Iran. He relished this role and used it to amass weaponry and other military systems provided in large part by France and the USSR. The US role was mainly one of ignoring the fact that he was a brutal tyrant.
He decided in 1990 that it was time for his next power play and he went after Kuwait. This ended the West seeing his Iraq as a buffer state but instead as a threat in and of itself. If he hadn't made this mistake he would still be throwing political opponents into wood chippers today.
You should go over to GlobalSecurity.com and read up on who all has nukes and the nuclear non-proliferation treaties.Quote:
Originally Posted by CodedFire
Il check that out
The war is against the people. Declaring war on something has been in vogue for a long time, but it's nothing more than political cover. The war on drugs was the excuse for spending huge amounts of money on ineffective techniques. The war on terror has been used as an excuse for several different things, such as Iraq, Gitmo, wire tapping, power and financial moves, etc. It can't be won, and can't ever end, just like the war on drugs, so it will just keep being run out there as long as it will get people to agree to spend money because of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
That's cynical, but this is the most cynical administration in the history of the US, so it's probably consciously true. The results have been bad enough to shock conservatives and liberals alike, but as long as it is billed as a war, a bunch of the core conservatives will shut up and wave the flag. The shoddy care given to injured soldiers? Ignore it. The obvious government failings of Dept. Homeland Security? Ignore it. Poor planning going into the war? Ignore it. And if anybody complains, call them unpatriotic.
If you believe that God in heavan will come down and right any wrongs, then you can convince yourself that there is something more than "Might Makes Right" at work here. As far as I am concerned, each side in any conflict demonized their enemy, and the victor writes the history books. To make people fight, you paint a picture in simple black and white so that it is easy to understand. Don't worry about the truth, you and all of yours will be dead and gone before history sorts out what happened and why.Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
Look at the aforementioned Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Some people make it out that the US was innocently napping on a late fall morning when Japan suddenly jumped out of nowhere and attacked us. Nobody who has ever taken even a casual look at the history of the time believes that. The US knew that the war was coming. Roosevelt was doing everything he could to sway us into a fight with Germany, and Japan was a member of the Axis. Furthermore, Japan and America were on a collision course that everybody had been aware of for over a decade, at least. But the picture that was painted was that they came out of nowhere and attacked us, and that justified everything. Well, we won, so we get to write the justifications. I wonder what the books would look like if we hadn't won? I would guess they would talk mostly about American imperialism and attempts to stifle the economy of Japan.
Shut up and wave the flag, and maybe we'll never have to write anything negative in our history books. After all, the Civil War is still taught as the War of Northern Aggression in schools across the south. They're always evil, we're always good, and therefore any fighting we choose to do is on the side of God, just like the Wermacht with the phrase "God is with us" on their belt buckles.
Another appeal to emotion argument huh? You pull out 9/11 everytime you want to win an argument I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Gambo
I'm not saying emergency wire taps are bad. I'm saying it's bad that the Bush Administration felt fit to ignore the law and not even notify the Judicial branch after each wire tap.
It leads me to believe they little or no justification for the wire taps they and that their wire taps were outrageous enough that they wanted to hide it from Judicial oversight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panay_incidentQuote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Quote:
Japan and the United States were not at war at the time. The Japanese claimed that they did not see the United States flags painted on the deck of the gunboat, apologized and paid an indemnity. Nevertheless, the attack and the subsequent Allison incident in Nanjing caused U.S. opinion to turn sharply against the Japanese.
Where are you getting that piece of nonsense from. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
It wasn't the case when I was in school in the 60's and 70's and certainly isn't the case now.
Most recently, I was told about it from a University of Georgia student who was shocked to be taught about the northern war of aggression in class (she was northern herself). I have also heard it from several other sources. It's good that it's not universal, but I actually expected that it was sufficiently widespread that anybody who grew up in certain southern states would have encountered it (not Florida, WV,, eastern TN, and maybe Ky, but definitely LA, MS, or AL).
What was that first post about? I have heard of that incident, but I'm not sure what your point was? Do you think we are at risk for a surprise attack by Israel?
In case you have forgotten that one, the Israelis attacked a US ship (a CIA snoop ship, if I remember right) that was located off Lebanon, or some such. There were great expressions of remorse, but it appeared highly unlikely that it was not a deliberate attack.
Well, I've lived in Georgia all my life except while I was serving in the Marines and I've never heard of the Civil War being seriously taught with that name in any class at any level.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Now, there are some people around who will argue it that way and some of them may be in tenured academia in some places. Being a huge state school, UGA certainly has more than its share of kooky professors of all political stripes.
I have run into a few well educated nutbars on various political forums that insist that it was a war of aggression by the North fought over protectionist tariffs, not slavery. Most of these have been radical libertarians and Constitutionalists and most of them weren't from the South either.
I think you're confusing the Panay Incident, which happened on the Yangtze River outside of Nanjing, China on December 12, 1937 with the USS Liberty Incident that happened in international waters off the Sinai Peninsula on June 8, 1967. Also don't confuse it with the USS Pueblo Incident that happened off the coast of North Korea on January 23, 1968.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
I wasn't attempting to confuse it with anything. I wasn't sure what point you were making by bringing it up. Was there a point? The link was interesting, especially the response of the Japanese people. Very odd.
I think I may have stated that bit about the war of aggression in a fashion that could be readily misinterpreted. I didn't expect that the Civil War was taught in that fashion everywhere, what I meant to state is that there exist places where it is taught in that fashion, to which you agree. There has been too much mixing within this country for any area to be monolithic in any social area, but that is true of other places as well, just look at the neo-nazi flap over in Israel. That's pretty amazing.
My point was more that there is no outcome to any conflict that is seen as "good" by all sides, unless one side has no members left. The north may now see the civil war as a fight against slavery, but in its day, only a portion of the north saw it that way. Nor was the south fighting for slavery in general. Whether the war was "just" is largely dependent on your point of view, and that will be true for almost any conflict. The neo-cons wanted to set Iraq up as an example of democracy that would be a shining beacon to other states in the region. That would be a noble goal, but the reality is always somewhat different. The sunnis didn't WANT to give up power. The shiites were happy to have power, but not to use it in the fashion the neo-cons were hoping. The kurds don't even want to play, but were happy if we got them out of the arena (though Turkey and Iran would strongly oppose them quitting Iraq).
What they needed to do was what they didn't do: Consider the situation from the viewpoint of the people affected, not from their rosy idealistic dreams. We didn't have the power they thought we had. They thought we could force the situation to our desires, regardless of what the various suppressed factions of Iraq wanted. We were strong, but not THAT strong, and our failure will make us less likely to succeed next time.
There are folks who did not like losing the civil war, and some of those groups, and their offspring still see the north as the enemy. However, within this country, other forces, such as family, patriotism, sound economy, standard of living, and other such things keep those divides in the background. Iraq has no economy to speak of, very little work, no cohesive patriotic history, and MUCH stronger fault lines based on islamic faction, tribal lines, and a very long history of antagonism. Sure, there were bad things happening, but it was not a "just" war, as all it really did was remove the force that was keeping a lid on a pressure cooker. If we don't get another lid in place, it will fly apart, and there is no outside force that guarantees that things will move towards more stability. No underlying moral order to life that ensures that things will tend to fall in a particular direction. They will tend to fall as the various forces on them dictate.